What is one essential quality both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lack? Backbone. The spirit of liberty that makes us all orators, movers and shakers. It is our common heritage as Americans. It is our will to fight.

I haven’t decided which candidate to support in next year’s presidential primary. But John Edwards’ powerful populist message speaks to my heart and moves me emotionally.

Any long time reader of AIAW knows that, like Edwards, I consider myself a populist at heart. So, I’m proud to present this moving video clip with a h/t to Mosquito Blog for bringing it to my attention.

We need a candidate who will fight. A person who can and will stand up to the radical right’s bloody power grab. Someone who can stand strongly for equality, peace and prosperity.

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

As I pointed out elsewhere, I can respect the opinions and feelings of those who were offended by these comments (especially since Edwards wasn’t asked about Black males specifically). But it’s crucial to keep in mind that there is a difference between recognizing the disproportionate representation of African American males in prisons in order to prevent it and recognizing the disproportionate representation of African American males in order to stereotype it. Edwards was clearly making the first point; he was trying to criticize America’s current penchant for building more and more prisons while at the same time trying to point about how that answer to violence has disproportionately, and unfairly, targeted and injured African American males.

I urge everyone who has a question about this to see the entire video (and not just the short, decontextualized clips that Fox has put out.) What’s most interesting to me is that the claim that Edwards’ comments were racist and/or offensive came not just from some on the left but also from many on the right (as anyone can verify with a Google blog search). Now when a right wing blogger calls you racist, I think we on the left need to pause for a moment. What is it, after all, that they (right wingers) don’t want us to talk about? Surely many on the right don’t mind either the disproportionate representation of African American males in prison or the disproportionate representation of African Americans in poverty, and surely they don’t mind, say, the fact that 17% of American children are born poor. Edwards does.

Really shitty phrasing, but he’s driving at something we need to address, this idea that building more prisons solves anything other than the prison industry’s bottom line, and the fact that our justice system is racist.

I posted it just to be sure that it would be received in the fashion it was intended and you did it.
Just for the record, I see no difference between Ron Paul’s comments and John Edwards comments on the matter when kept in context.

That’s not the difference, that’s a little spinning, biased reporting there. But I expected it.
My point is that when your guy does it you have all the answers and when my guy does it your answer is that he is not worthy. Whether the statistics back it up or not. You say you lived in MA for a while, tell me what color (not that it matters) was the winner of the Boston marathon for the last 20 + years??
Just looking for a little consistency.

Michael D,
It is the difference. You just refuse to see it.
Your guy, Ron Paul, does not have the right answer. While his push to end the war on drugs is admirable, he does nothing, nothing to address the systemic issues of racism throughout our justice system. In fact he has taken steps, as with his stance on the civil rights act and opposition to the prosecution of cross burning, that directly aid racism in this country. And all Ron Paul supporters can do is say “he’ll fight the war on drugs! He’s colorblind!”. He’s just blind.

Edwards recognizes the inequality, and wants to change it. There is a fundamental difference between phrasing something stupidly as Edwards did, and repackaging fringe right wing racist froth in libertarian wrapping as Paul does.

I don’t really remember who was run over the past 20 years. I do remember hearing that Kenyans do especially well. From what I heard, this was due to a mix of training regimen and running technique. But frankly, how would who won the marathon ever prove your point? For someone who agrees with me on the futility of polls, you’ve picked an awfully small sample size to judge an entire group of people.

“There is a fundamental difference between phrasing something stupidly as Edwards did, and repackaging fringe right wing racist froth in libertarian wrapping as Paul does.”

I have the same response, you just refuse to see it.
That is a well crafted sentence. It’s wrong but it is well crafted. This is an example of why I enjoy dialog with you and everyone on the site really but I have to disagree yet again (you’re are no doubt unsurprised by this).

I believe you aren’t seeing the forest through the trees. If it is repackaged spew then why does his voting record of opposition to the party stances, compared to his “fringe right wing racist froth in libertarian wrapping” contradict it?

He doesn’t condone cross burning why can’t you stop spinning it? Because you are not a free speech advocate? No, you are pro free speech as the basis of your support of the ACLU indicates. Doesn’t the ACLU support the right of free speech to burn flags and crosses?

Marathons, track and field, Olympics, etc. etc. The data (long powerful limbs and acute balance) shows that African lineage is an advantage in, (to quote Monty Python), “moving around knees bent advancing motion.” (In my opinion, another well crafted sentence)
Just as the data (low center of gravity) on Asian lineage contributes to their proficiency in gymnastics.
Do these statements scream “RACIST” to you? They shouldn’t they are statements of fact with corroborating data.
It’s all in the interpretation or the explanation, so if it is spun correctly it can portray negativity, and that is how it is handled with bias due to party lines mostly (my opinion).

Seeing past partisan bias is difficult it would seem. It should make no difference what party you are from (there should be no party separation) it should only pass the basic common sense test of what is good for the people (you and me) as the people are supposedly in charge. This approach is disregarded by the politics as usual crowd as long as they can unite dem vs. rep or rep vs. dem in a distracting public display.

I’ve heard too many times from too many people about supporting a position of the opposing party being reason enough to dismiss the merits of the position. To quote Chris Rock ” anyone who makes up their mind on an issue before they know what the issue is is ignorant” Seems to be the norm for either of the only two parties in existence. Sad, very sad…